2010

Team O In Twilight Zone – Western Multiculturalism At Odds With Arab World Over Terror Strategy

March 5, 2015 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – Two weeks ago the Obama WH convened a conference to supposedly develop policies to battle what it colloquially calls, “violent extremism,” the euphemism it uses to avoid the obvious, that normative Islam and terrorism are inextricably linked.

As noted in numerous articles, Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other terror friendly individuals and organization were in attendance at this convocation. Certainly, inviting the enemy to attend strategy sessions to defeat it is a unique way of handling the matter, but in this WH one must remember that up is down…

“…A Boston-based hub of terrorism associated with a top Islamic State propagandist and producer of hostage-beheading videos will receive the red carpet treatment at an anti-terrorism conference [the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism] at the Obama White House this Wednesday. [source, Matthew Vadim, Obama White House Partners with ISIS-Linked Group , Front Page Magazine]

But despite efforts by the WH to cherry-pick and limit attendees to those receptive to Team O’s “violent extremist” approach, some at the meeting, especially those representing key Middle East countries, have since raised serious questions about the president’s anti-terror policy.

Egypt’s objections were notable; there was no effort to de-link Islamic ideology from terrorism, “Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukri said that the terrorism seen today has its roots in the Islamist radicalism of the 1920s, a possible reference to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was formed in this period.” [source, Ahmed Eleiba, Egypt’s options to fight terror, Al-Ahram Weekly]

Other experts agreed, pointing out the fallacious assumptions which form the basis for Obama’s plan to battle “violent extremism.”

“Gamal Abdel-Gawad, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo who followed the conference, sees a clear divergence in views between Egypt and the US. “The US still sees political Islam as a present and legitimate player, not a synonym for extremism,” Abdel-Gawad said. “The US administration also differentiates between extremist Islamists and moderate Islamists and believes that the moderates can be effectively integrated in politics as part of an acceptable political system.”

Professor Abdel-Gawad thus makes clear that the deficiencies of Obama’s “terror” strategy are rooted in politics. In wanting to leave all “options” open the administration intentionally misrepresents the nature of the jihadist threat, siding with precisely one of modern terrorism’s seminal organizations, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Both Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have designated the Ikhwan as a terrorist group. Though one might think that DC might defer to the better judgment of people who have an intimate understanding of terrorism, Washington refuses to do so because it’s operating under the false hope that by not taking sides it will assured of victory regardless of the outcome.

This is an absurd notion; witness the actions of Egypt.

With Obama blocking access to the American weapons which the country needs to defend itself, it has by necessity allied with Russia and China in order to obtain arms. So failure to commit has its price, allies are not only abandoned but actually driven into the hands of our adversaries. The enemy is emboldened by this sign of weakness and to imagine that jihadists will look more kindly upon the United States because it refuses to publicly link Islamic ideology with terror is so delusional it could only make sense to those who are now in control of foreign policy.